Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 2002 18:15:59 -0800 | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | Subject | Re: Maybe a VM bug in 2.4.18-18 from RH 8.0? |
| |
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 02:44:29AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > Or it hurts when you can't allocate an inode because such 100M are in > pagetables on a 64G box and you still have 60G free of highmem.
This is the zone vs. zone watermark stuff that penalizes/fails allocations made with a given GFP mask from being satisfied by fallback. This is largely old news wrt. various kinds of inability to pressure those ZONE_NORMAL (maybe also ZONE_DMA) consumers.
Admission control for fallback is valuable, sure. I suspect the question akpm raised is about memory utilization. My own issues are centered around allocations targeted directly at ZONE_NORMAL, which fallback prevention does not address, so the watermark patch is not something I'm personally very concerned about.
64GB isn't getting any testing that I know of; I'd hold off until someone's actually stood up and confessed to attempting to boot Linux on such a beast. Or until I get some more RAM. =)
Bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |